Bishop Claire Burkat of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has frequently criticized Redeemer for “resisting” her leadership. With scant detail, she seeks to create the illusion of a renegade congregation that must be reined in for benefit of the whole Church. Her mission is easily accomplished in a synod where the rank and file is passive.
In her words, she sensed “resistance”—a definite taboo in her leadership style—but definitely allowed within the church’s democratic processes and under the beliefs of our faith.
In another tirade Redeemer was “adversarial.”
Adversarial. Resistant. Not bad words. By definition, nothing for Redeemer to be ashamed of — except by innuendo and the surety within the ELCA that no one will investigate.
Redeemer was placed in an adversarial position by unreasonable and unconscionable behavior of a bishop who uses name-calling to disguise self-interest.
Congregational leaders should stand up for the people they lead (be adversaries) and resist selfish outside agendas.
If congregational leaders are not permitted to represent their congregation’s interests, they serve no purpose. This may be the problem in SEPA and the ELCA. Its governing structure is ineffective.
If you read the three illustrations we recently posted about SEPA’s concept of mutual discernment, you will notice that Redeemer was very cooperative whenever SEPA leadership asked them to do anything that made sense and would further their mission efforts. Redeemer often sacrificed self-interest in its cooperation.
Redeemer resisted when the congregation was asked to do things which would endanger their ministry.
Redeemer cooperated with Bishop Almquist’s proposal to call Pastor Matthias for 18 months. Bishop Almquist broke the call agreement three months later.
Redeemer cooperated with Bishop Almquist when he declared synodical administration. Redeemer resisted within Lutheran rules but worked with Bishop Almquist and the trustees, bringing the matter to peaceful resolution within a year. Redeemer resisted when he failed to return our money upon the release of synodical administration for an additional year.
Redeemer agreed to accept the only pastor Bishop Almquist offered. Redeemer resisted locking in to a term call when the pastor announced his intentions to provide only the barest amount of service. Redeemer supported a term call, which Bishop Almquist refused to consider.
Redeemer cooperated when we were approached to help Epiphany when its building was condemned. We worked in good faith for 18 months. Redeemer was not given the opportunity to resist when SEPA began working with Epiphany in secret to close down their ministry, without considering the covenant made with Redeemer.
Most of the attention of the covenant for the first year was on settling Epiphany’s pressing problems. As soon as the covenant began to show some promise of benefitting Redeemer—the covenant was broken with all benefits to SEPA. Redeemer did not protest the inequity, but we felt used.
Redeemer cooperated for an additional six months, allowing both Epiphany and synod ready and rent-free access to our property. Less than a year later synod tried to lock us out!
Redeemer brought our successful outreach ministry to local East African immigrants to the attention of Bishop Burkat. She told us we were not allowed to do outreach ministry and refused to recognize our East African members—some of whom had been members for a decade.
Redeemer met with the trustees in good faith and shared our ministry plan with both them and Bishop Burkat, unaware in the beginning that the trustees had lied to us for five months. We learned from a synod staff member that Bishop Burkat never intended to give Redeemer’s ministry consideration.
Redeemer followed ELCA and SEPA constitutions, asking to withdraw from the ELCA, which clearly was not serving the congregation.SEPA resisted, refusing to allow Redeemer the 90 days of negotiation called for in the constitution.
Many of the continuing travesties of this sad and horrific chapter in SEPA’s history—that everyone just wishes away—would not have happened had SEPA worked with Redeemer. That’s the subject of another post.
2×2’s previous post addressed how the interests of a regional body can hinder mission. Here’s an historical example.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and its relationship with Redeemer, East Falls, provides many interesting illustrations of how the structure of the ELCA, intended for good, actually impedes creative ministry.
Its attempt to structure itself interdependently quickly becomes crippled by the reality that the regional body is dependent on congregations funding its budget, heavy with salary obligations and an expensive, outdated infrastructure. Meanwhile, congregations must meet their own budgets and support the regional and national bodies.
Years of hard work and “mutual discernment”
Bishop Burkat talks of years of working with our congregation under her leadership and that of her predecessor. She calls the process “mutual discernment.”
Sounds good. Only it didn’t happen quite that way.
There were more years of neglect than of working together.
There were so many hidden agendas that mutual discernment was impossible.
Attempts to ignore the wishes of the congregation were routine.
With interdependence comes the jockeying of self-interest. Congregations may be unaware that the synod has self-interests. They may assume that the synod has their interests at heart.
Meanwhile, the regional body expects the unquestioning deference of congregations.
Mutual Discernment at Work
Redeemer was always a small but self-sufficient congregation. SEPA did not support Redeemer financially as many people have been led to believe. It was the other way around.
When the ELCA was created in the late 1980s, Redeemer had a part-time pastor who also worked in the Synod offices. Redeemer was seen as not likely to ever support a full-time ministry. Any part-time pastor filled the bill in their eyes—a pulse was the primary qualification. They were marking time.
Then Redeemer received a $300,000 endowment. Suddenly, there was an interest in Redeemer. Pastor Wm deHeyman left the synod offices to work more fully with Redeemer. He served Redeemer 11 years. (Synod represents that Redeemer had just short-term pastors. Not true. His predecessor served 7 years.)
Wm deHeyman retired in 1996. His last years were difficult and factions had formed with some rallying around the pastor.
Redeemer looked forward to a new start.
Bishop Roy Almquist proposed that the congregation call one of his staff members, Rev. Robert Matthias, for an 18-month term call as an interim pastor.
Redeemer cooperated whole-heartedly.
This was a tumultuous time at Redeemer for other reasons. There was a series of personal tragedies that impacted congregational life. A tragic death of one family’s child. Another family was wracked with grief when its youngest child was paralyzed in an accidental shooting. A third child and family faced serious issues. The families of four council members were in crisis. During this time, a newer member volunteered to help with the financial books as the treasurer was one of the affected parents. It was soon discovered that the volunteer was embezzling money. The crime was noticed and rectified quickly—within months—but it added to the congregation’s sadness. This incident is sometimes used today to justify SEPA’s interest in Redeemer, but at the time they took no action that indicated they had concern that Redeemer could not rectify this on its own.
What was SEPA’s response in the face of unusual tragic circumstances in a small congregation?
They walked away and left the congregation with no pastor for nearly a year.
Three months into the 18-month term call agreement, Bishop Almquist returned to Redeemer and asked to break the call contract. He had an assignment for Pastor Matthias in Bucks County.
Redeemer cooperated even though it meant its investment in Pastor Matthias was wasted. Naturally, the congregation was hurt. Why was Bucks County more important than the promise SEPA had made with Redeemer?
During this year, Assistant to the Bishop Sue Ericsson was meeting with the council unbeknownst to the congregation. She encouraged the council (half of whom were in personal crisis) to convince the congregation to close. A plan was drafted. If the congregation did not go along, the congregation council would submit resignations providing grounds for SEPA to take over. Mutual discernment was being dictated behind the scenes.
The congregation’s annual meeting, usually held in February, was announced for January.
Three guests were introduced, Pastor Matthias, Gordon Simmons and Rodney Kopp.
Some reports were made. At the point when the budget should have been presented, the congregation council submitted the resolution to close (drafted by synod). This had not been discussed in the congregation who thought they were holding a routine annual meeting. They voted to table the resolution for further study—a reasonable response. A congregation should study an important issue before voting!
On cue, council members placed letters of resignation (drafted by synod) on the table. They were swooped up by Pastor Matthias who announced the meeting was over and the congregation was under synodical administration. While Pastors Simmons and Kopp spoke to angry congregation members who were feeling ambushed (Pastor Kopp used the term “blind-sided”), Pastor Matthias left with the letters of resignation and the church books.
Pastor Mathias was known at the local bank. He and a former Redeemer treasurer visited the bank the next day and conveyed $90,000 to SEPA. SEPA asked our tenants to send payments to them. Mutual discernmentincluded trickery.
But paying the bills was the extent of synodical administration. Redeemer kept its offerings and there was significant money in savings available to the congregation. Activities at the church continued to be run by the congregation.
The congregation felt betrayed by their council and SEPA. The members who resigned ended up leaving, some after long years at Redeemer. SEPA had used them at a time when they were vulnerable.
SEPA refused to share the letters of resignation. We learned three council members had not resigned. Two pastors helped the congregation appoint members to fill vacant seats as is allowed in the constitution. Redeemer’s council continued to meet and run the daily affairs of the church and plan its own worship and mission which included an ambitious summer program, totally lay led.
Redeemer protested the synodical administration for a year.
Several supply pastors led worship, including Rev. Harvey Davis. Our first Tanzanian members joined during this time. Bishop Almquist at last released the synodical administration. But he did not return the money for an additional year. At last, SEPA returned about $82,000, keeping some to cover their legal expenses. The fact that they were able to pay the congregation’s bills without depleting the $90,000 in two years, proves that the congregation was financially viable.
When the synodical administration was lifted, Bishop Almquist asked the congregation to call Rev. Jesse Brown. He was the only candidate presented. Bishop Almquist suggested a one-year term call.
Redeemer cooperated.
Things were fine with Pastor Brown, but at the end of the year he announced that he wanted to cut his hours to just ten per week, the minimum needed for him to retain his ordination credentials.
Redeemer did not wish to regularize a call with a pastor who wanted to provide minimal service. Redeemer agreed to extend the term call, but Bishop Almquist insisted it be regularized—or there would be no pastor for a very long time. Mutual discernment included threats.
Why was this a deal-breaker?
What’s the difference between a term call and a regularized call?
A regularized call can be ended by the pastor at any time with 30 days notice, but if the congregation wants to make a change, they must muster a two-thirds vote against a pastor. This can be very divisive, especially when a pastor is liked—as was Pastor Brown. Redeemer’s concern was his minimal level of commitment and what that meant to Redeemer’s ability to grow in mission. For Redeemer’s lay leaders, it was not enough that a pastor was “liked.” The congregation had to make progress. Redeemer’s leaders were looking wisely into their future. A regularized call would become problematic if Pastor Brown’s outside interests minimized the effect of his ten hours per week. Locking into a regularized call under these circumstances was not in the interest of the congregation, no matter how much the pastor was liked by individual members. In fact, it was likely to be a greater issue if the pastor was liked. The congregation’s leaders would be frustrated with lack of mission progress, while the more minimally committed members of the voting congregation were content. Redeemer was being forced to make a foolish decision that was predicated on the synod’s dismal vision for the congregation, which happened to have a healthy endowment, while they were operating with a deficit.
The congregation council rejected the synod’s proposal. Bishop Almquist asked for a second vote overseen by a staff person. That vote failed, too. Bishop Almquist deemed that the congregation should vote on the call — never explaining the wisdom of asking the congregation to vote for something the church council was against. That vote failed too.
If the vote hadn’t failed, it would have strained relationships between the council and the congregation. This was pointed out to Bishop Almquist, but he insisted on taking the issue to the congregation anyway. He was interested only in getting the vote that served his purpose—finding a call for Jesse Brown.
Bishop Almquist kept his promise. Synod ignored Redeemer for Bishop Almquist’s entire second term.
The congregation worked with Pastor Harvey Davis for three years until the pastor needed to retire. He was influential in attracting several young couples with diverse ethnic backgrounds and our Tanzanian membership continued to grow. Redeemer was becoming multicultural and was making significant innovations successfully. The ministry showed promise despite synodical neglect.
Let’s look a the motivations behind this history that is so often referenced as reason for Bishop Burkat’s actions a decade later.
Why was it important to SEPA that Redeemer’s call be regularized? Term calls are a constitutional option.
The synod’s interest in a regularized call solved some of its problems.
Pastor Brown could retain his status as an ordained pastor while he ran for public office and operated his own business on the side.
His minimal service would solve SEPA’s problem of staffing Redeemer.
Redeemer’s mission and interests were not really considered.
SEPA’s view of Redeemer was that its elderly population would die within 10 years. Minimal ministry would speed the process along. This thinking takes on signficant importance when the targeted congregation has assets and the regional body is operating with deficits. The regularized call gave SEPA more control over Redeemer and the fate it was tacitly seeking.
Declaring synodical administration gave them access to congregational assets.
After SEPA returned Redeemer’s assets, Bishop Almquist issued an appeal letter to all congregations for almost exactly the amount of money returned to Redeemer.
Redeemer had supplied SEPA with an interest-free loan.
Synodical administration had been used as a tool to benefit SEPA. Mission in East Falls was never the objective.
Lasting damage was done to Redeemer. Gossip created an unjustified cloud that hangs over East Falls to this day.
At all times in this conflict, Redeemer cooperated when it was reasonable to do so. It showed initiative, flexibility, and a willingness to accept change — all the things regional bodies look for when striving for transformation. But the congregation knew that Bishop Almquist’s insistence on a regularized call was not in the congregation’s interest.
Redeemer was consistently making choices that pointed them toward new and innovative ministry. SEPA was prescribing solutions that would benefit SEPA.
In days long gone by, the deans of a synod served uncompensated. It was their leadership contribution to their Church. In today’s ELCA, at least in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod, the deans are paid. Not much—but even a penny is influence.
Deans are supposed to serve a cluster of congregations as liaisons between the regional office and the congregation. Unpaid, they represent the congregations. Paid, they are arms of the synod.
Consequently, the congregations have very little access to the regional office except through the clergy — if they have clergy. The interdependence that defines the Lutheran church structure depends on communication between the congregations and the regional office and national church, which the cluster/conference and dean system is supposed to facilitate. With the leader of the clusters on the synod payroll, the integrity of the system is compromised. Forums for the interchange of interdependent thinking are muzzled.
When a dispute occurs, where can the congregations turn? Nowhere!
And so disputes, which the Church could and should handle themselves, spill into the secular courts.
It is an ethical dilemma that is largely unrecognized. Without an independent intermediary, this is unlikely to be addressed.
Recommendation: Don’t pay the deans. Allow them to be the voice of the congregations — as they are supposed to be. It won’t hurt them to serve the church the way they expect lay people to serve the church. It would help reestablish trust — and interdependence.
I had an uncle who was a Methodist preacher. He often said, only partially jokingly, “Jesus is the answer. Now what is your question?”
There seems to be a similar “go to” response in the Church today. When you don’t know what to do—or when you do know what to do but don’t have the courage to do it, there is an easy answer. Promise to pray.
It’s been tough going for our congregation as members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Bishop Claire Burkat of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod went on the warpath against Redeemer Lutheran in East Falls, Philadelphia, including personal attacks on lay members. Acquiring the assets of Redeemer seems to have been part of the plan to fund massive budget deficits from the very beginning of her first term in 2006.
Large deficits have been routine since the beginning of SEPA back in the late 1980s. Giving and attendance were (and still are) in serious decline. There was no plan for reviving small church ministry beyond neglect and waiting for failure. Several congregations folded rather than swim upstream without the cooperation of SEPA leadership.
The assumption of SEPA leadership is that if they neglect ministry for a decade, ministry will fail to the benefit of Synod coffers. Under Lutheran polity this isn’t a given. Congregations can determine where to donate their assets. But Synods are finding a work-around that guarantees they will benefit. Simply declare the congregations “terminated” before they can have any say. This means that the congregations have NO rights within the Church they have served for decades or centuries. They need not even be consulted! Constitutional checks and balances are ignored.
Redeemer was getting the “10 years of neglect” treatment. But it wasn’t going as Synod planned. Lay leadership grew. Alliances were made with several dedicated pastors. Redeemer was in a promising position, with a five-year commitment of a qualified Lutheran pastor, working under a detailed plan that the congregation had spent six months drafting. In fact, our ministry continues to grow, despite the abuse.
But the efforts of lay people are not valued.
And there was that $275,000 deficit budget approved by Synod Assembly at the same time they voted (against Lutheran rules) to take our property.
And all of this has gone on while the clergy of SEPA Synod have watched.
Our members have approached people who should be in a position to at least open dialog on the issues.
There are fairly specific guidelines for resolution of disputes in the Bible and there are governing documents that could be followed within the Church. But ELCA leaders do not bother. They rely on “wisdom.”
We’ve heard all kinds of excuses.
From Bishop Hanson: Just talk it out. I have great regard for Bishop Burkat.
From a Synod Council member: We have no intention of negotiating with you. (Synod Council is supposed to represent the congregations.)
From deans: Silence
From pastors in a position to help: We have to trust the wisdom of the bishop.
From pastors who visited Redeemer 30 or 40 years ago: We know your history (as if Redeemer was stuck in a time warp).
From pastors who don’t know anything about Redeemer — but voted with the crowd anyway: Sorry! We didn’t know.
Whatever the excuse, it is always accompanied with a sanctimonious, conscience-assuaging promise to pray.
We wonder what these learned church leaders expect to come of prayer.
That someone else—anyone else—will play peacemaker.
That God will suddenly fix everything without any work.
That whatever happens won’t affect them.
That miracles will replace gumption.
That whatever happens, their jobs will be secure.
That they will never be the victims of the type of leadership abuses that have characterized this sad episode (and perhaps others before us).
That life in SEPA will go on as if Redeemer, and Epiphany, and Grace and others never existed—and the list will probably continue to grow.
Lutherans pride themselves on an interdependent structure. That means we are supposed to work together.
Here’s a suggestion:
By all means, keep praying, but recognize that the answer to prayer is probably in getting off your backsides and doing something.
‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do
for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has been embroiled in trouble, largely of its own making, since 2008. It wasn’t sudden, there was a nearly decade-long prologue of neglect.
During this long period of absence from the ministry of Redeemer Lutheran Church in East Falls, SEPA leaders made unfortunate miscalculations.
SEPA had discouraged professional leadership from serving in East Falls. The strategy they were following—as published at about the same time in a book co-authored by then Synod staff member, Claire Burkat—was to let Redeemer die. SEPA presumed that lay people with no one to tell them what to do would drift rudderless and get tired. One day, the last Lutheran on board would call the Synod and beg for a lifeline.
This may have seemed like the easy way to gain the congregation’s valuable property and substantial financial assets. It is proving to be disastrous—for Redeemer and the entire Synod. It may even trickle UP to the entire ELCA as other Synods (having read the book) attempt to implement the strategy!
The book leaves out the last chapter. It doesn’t always go as planned.
The group of elderly members that Bishop Almquist assumed would soon fail by attrition did not go to their heavenly reward without laying a new foundation for the church they loved. Redeemer grew during SEPA’s years of neglect. By the time Claire Burkat was elected bishop, there was a new group of Lutherans in East Falls, who had no idea they were heirs to SEPA’s prejudice.
Consequently, Bishop Burkat, intent on exercising powers not found in Lutheran governing documents, led SEPA into a financial boondoggle. They lack the leadership skills to retreat. They are relying on the secular courts to resolve Church problems. Courts don’t want the job.
Had Bishop Burkat cared about the people of East Falls and its mission, she would have strategized to protect her sheep as if they were as valuable as the property she coveted. The ministry that was initiated and nurtured with the investments of the laity would not have been shuttered, but would be earning a steady income, paying the congregation’s obligations with no dependence on SEPA and its member churches.
But SEPA had its own problems. It had been living on deficit budgets for most of its 20-year history. In 2008, that deficit was $275,000, approved by a Synod Assembly at a time when giving was down in nearly every congregation. There was no plan for making up this deficit except to close churches and seize assets. Bishop Burkat is insulted at this suggestion. But it was explained to that Assembly that money to make up shortfalls traditionally comes from the Mission Fund—which is the repository for the assets of closed congregations. No other plan for funding this huge deficit was presented.
Bishop Burkat further denies that selling church properties is part of synod’s survival strategy even in the face of evidence that she offered Redeemer’s property for sale to a Lutheran agency without the congregation’s knowledge just prior to the Synod Assembly that approved the huge deficit and voted to take Redeemer’s property.
There WAS (and perhaps IS) a plan to close churches and sell their property.
Bishop Burkat seems amazed that anyone would resist her clandestine takeover, fraught with deceptive maneuvering, and which defies Lutheran polity. Lutheran congregations own their properties and manage their own assets.
Resistance is a right of every congregation. But SEPA found a way to sidestep congregational rights. Declare them “terminated.” Deny them access to the constitutional benefits of church membership. Treat members as enemies.
She has become a victim of her own lust for power.
And it is costing all of SEPA.
If Bishop Burkat had cared about East Falls . . .
Redeemer would be open for worship.
The school Redeemer was about to open as a Christian day school would be operating to the benefit of East Falls and the income of $6000 to $10,000 a month for Redeemer.
Redeemer’s mission capabilities, which have continued to grow despite repression, would also be showing fruitful reward. They are already gaining influence.
The congregation’s expenses would not be burdening all of SEPA. (The price tag is well over $320,000.)
Instead you have locked properties and alienated members and a community that will always be reminded — The Lutherans? Yes, they are the Church that sues its members.
Even if Bishop Burkat did not trust the loyal Lutherans of East Falls, whom she did not know, she could have done something to keep the problems from escalating. She could have tried to raise funds. She could have worked with the people she leads. She did nothing but turn to the courts (which the Bible expressly discourages—1 Corinthians 6).
The Church does not need leaders to do nothing. We need leaders to solve problems. In this, SEPA leadership has failed. Pride and greed have blinded all sense of mission. Hatefulness and vindictiveness have replaced the messages of love and forgiveness. There is no effort to reconcile. SEPA wants to WIN at any cost. Silence the pastors. Call in the lawyers.
The only people who can fix this, the Lutherans of Southeastern Pennsylvania, are content to let the church attack lay people as their preferred management solution. They foolishly do not envision being in the same situation. Our Ambassador visits reveal that there are dozens of congregations in SEPA that are no larger or wealthier than Redeemer. As Redeemer goes, so will they.
Yesterday, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America announced an upcoming workshop for congregations. We first saw this listed as Weathering the Storm, but notice it is now advertised as Weathering the System.
Weathering the System
October 27, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
St. John’s Lutheran Church
505 North York Road, Hatboro, PA 19040
The six-hour workshop on conflict resolution is advertised as conflict transformation.
A buzzword unused is an opportunity squandered.
How do you weather a storm?
Make sure you win! Winning, at any cost, even at the expense of mission, outranks problem-solving in today’s church leadership. As one leading businessman wrote today, “It’s because defeat and power and humiliation and money have replaced ‘doing what works for all of us.'”
Although the names of presenters are not posted, you will learn from the best. The Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Lutheran Church in America, has been involved in years and years of conflict. They know the ropes!
Topics within synod’s expertise include:
how to create and define conflict using deceit
intimidating the opposition
exploiting vulnerable volunteers
how to identify which volunteers to eliminate to ensure victory
discouraging lay involvement to assure managerial success
how to pit clergy against laity to maximize success
guidelines for effective use of inflammatory language
when to apply the constitutions
when to ignore the constitutions
how to use Roberts’ Rules of Order
how to ignore Roberts’ Rules of Order
isolating the opposition from the rest of the Church
divide and conquer: tried and true techniques to guarantee divisiveness
tips for withholding professional services while appearing to serve
demonizing your opposition
use of litigation as a management tool
ignoring facts that do not serve your purpose
how to use partial truths to gain popular support
when to lie unabashedly
best practices in name-calling and finger-pointing
how to camouflage objectives with semantics
use of charm and charisma to deflect attention from the issues
how to keep knowledgeable people from asking questions
when and how to declare your opponents as non-existent
the underestimated value and strategic use of prejudice
creative use of statistics
techniques for silencing opposition
maximizing the “gotcha” factor
when and how to ignore Gospel imperatives
counting coup: the proper way to celebrate victory
The announcement quotes a former participant:
“Conflict and stress are a part of life. Both can be positive. It’s all in how you deal with it.”
Don’t miss the upcoming workshop. Learn how to deal with conflict from the masters!
Update: a subsequent announcement names The Rev. Dr. Jennifer Phelps Ollikainen of Liberty Lutheran as the presenter. Liberty Lutheran is independent of SEPA Synod, so content may actually be helpful!
How the Internet Can Force Us to Take A Good Look at Ourselves
A young man has been ranting online about the death of his sister in a car accident and her insurance company’s maneuverings to avoid paying the benefit included in her policy. They have probably spent more than the $75,000 the policy promised.
Considering the tragic circumstances, Mike Fisher’s writing is civil. His arguments make sense and are presented graciously. The battle that his parents have had to wage reveals the failing of corporate thinking. Money and litigation experience allows the Corporation to abuse its customers.
There was a time when victims of bad corporate behavior had little recourse.
They bet on short memories and the healing power of marketing dollars, commercials and discounts. Employees are pushed to focus on bureaucratic policies and quarterly numbers, not a realization that individuals, not corporations, are responsible for what they do.
The Corporate Church is no better than Progressive. They are mired in “corporate think.” It’s handling of its members has strayed far from biblical teachings. Dollars rule. People: too bad.
In Redeemer’s conflict with the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the same thinking is evident. The Church turned on its own “policy holders.” The conflict was vicious from the opening bell. The bishop attempts to make it look as if great efforts were made otherwise. They weren’t. In all the rhetoric explaining how hard they worked with Redeemer, they never give examples. There aren’t any.
The Church, from the start, used corporate power and pooled assets of 160 congregations to go after individuals in one small church.
The people of Redeemer always thought we were on the same side.
The lives of 82 lay volunteer church members have been turned upside down for four years with no end in sight. The Church is oblivious that their actions are against their own members— old people, children, immigrants, disabled people, students—faithful, hard-working people—the people the Church advertises that it cares for.
To SEPA, we are the enemy.
This enemy has been fighting for one thing—that SEPA and the ELCA keep the promises made to member churches.
The courts don’t want any part of church disputes. Unfortunately neither do other congregations, clergy, Presiding Bishop Hanson, or the national church.
Progressive Insurance creates enticing advertisements. Get the dollars flowing.
The Corporate Church preaches that it cares about bullying and social justice, love, reconciliation and compassion. When put to the test, it is just as self-protective of power and money as the Corporate Insurance Agency.
They are both in the “people business.” It’s time they both act like it.
People could stop the abuse. Will they?
We won’t buy Progressive Insurance. We still call ourselves Lutheran.
On Sunday, September 9, from 3-5 pm, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) will hold a discussion of the national body’s proposed social statement on criminal justice.
The Church’s concerns for justice might be more credible coming from people who do not hold themselves out as being immune from laws which apply to everyone else.
When faced with honest disagreements concerning Lutheran polity and interpretation of its constitutions, the ELCA and at least one regional body (SEPA Synod) has used the justice system to bully its members.
Instead of working with congregations as the constitutions define, SEPA made up its own rules, replacing their founding Articles of Incorporation with conflicting bylaws, putting congregations that actually read both documents at disadvantage.
This is counter to normal law. Articles of Incorporation outrank bylaws. The ELCA Articles of Incorporation even state that the regional bodies may not amend their constitutions in violation of the statutes of the founding charter. But that hasn’t stopped SEPA (and a few other synods, too).
SEPA proceeded to violate the statutes, betting that no one would stand in their way. When Redeemer, a member church, objected, their FIRST action was to file a law suit against them. Forget the constitutional grievance process.
Once they had the court’s attention, they argued that the case, which they filed, should not be heard because of separation of church and state.
The national church has watched in silence. They are busy regarding their leaders and disregarding their members.
This issue went to the Pennsylvania Appellate Court which dodged the issue, agreeing to no jurisdiction with an important dissenting opinion. The dissenting judges ruled that if the law is applied, the congregation’s arguments have merit and should be heard. If high-ranking judges disagree, there is room for honest disagreement within the church.
SEPA Synod views itself as above the law.
It would appear that SEPA Synod’s view of the justice system is that it exists as a tool to be used against dissenting members—an alternative to actually working out problems within their polity. It is a way to bypass the inconvenience of its own constitutions.
The draft statement includes a paragraph advocating responses of love and advocacy for those embroiled in the justice system. Redeemer has seen no such tolerance within the ELCA, SEPA Synod or even within its congregations. Summary of Draft Version of the Justice Statement
We suggest the ELCA and SEPA Synod stay out of this discussion until they can enter it with cleaner hands.
America was founded on the principle of Freedom of Religion. Early settlers came to escape state oppression of the emerging sects in Europe. Over the centuries, many faiths have sought refuge on American soil.
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion.
The legal system lives in fear of stepping on the exercise of religion. In recent court decisions they have gone so far as to determine that religious groups do not have to follow their own rules. That opens a new door. The leaders of religion can themselves become lawless oppressors.
That is the result of a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that determined the case brought by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the ELCA against a member church (Redeemer, East Falls, Philadelphia) could not be heard. Yes, they brought a case against a member church and then argued that the case they brought should not be heard.
The court gave SEPA Synod a victory by default —not based on evidence. They determined that it was up to the denomination to police its own rules. Fat chance.
A strong dissenting opinion concluded that if the law is applied, Redeemer’s arguments deserve a hearing. How are members of faith communities to assume that the laws they agreed to upon joining the community mean nothing?
That creates a very real problem for all the faithful. If constitutions agreed upon by religious groups when they go to the legal trouble of incorporating mean nothing, then faith communities are faced with potential lawlessness. The laity are sitting ducks for potential abuse. Clergy will run.
Faith communities can expect to be victimized by hierarchy. It is happening with greater frequency. The conflicts are usually about the value of real estate — not doctrine. Within the ELCA there are several cases of “hostile” takeovers—raids in the middle of the night or by stealth and deceit. One bishop, anticipating trouble, went so far as to call ahead to the sheriff and police department and warn them to expect a call from church members, but that they were allowed to change the church locks.
It is not the Church’s finest hour. As proven by Redeemer’s experience, Church leadership will not hesitate to use their protected status to tyrannize their members — those with the least power, the laity. You won’t read much about this on the pages of The Lutheran.
“I have the power,” Bishop Burkat was heard to say as she prepared to raid Redeemer. If so, it is a power allowed by courts side-stepping the issues. It is not a power given by the ELCA constitutions/articles of incorporation or by God.
It’s legal because the law exempts the church. Perhaps there is hope.
The law has finally stepped in on the Roman Catholic Church and its handling of crimes within its ranks—but not before a great deal of damage was done to both victims and the Church.
On this Independence Day, it is worth noting that the Bill of Rights does not protect the members of faith communities from the abuses of their own leaders. This can be stopped by the members of the faith community, but experience is proving that the religious don’t care unless they are directly affected. They are free to use other provisions of the Bill of Rights such as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. Odds, in the current atmosphere, are against it.
Today there was a celebration in East Lansdowne, a Philadelphia suburb.
Over the past seven years, the aging Lutheran congregation, Immanuel, found new life by hosting a community of African immigrants led by a pastor, who himself had immigrated from Liberia.
They named their community Faith.
Today they officially merged with the remnants of Immanuel to become Faith Immanuel. Congratulations to the new congregation, its lay leaders, and Pastor Moses Suah-Dennis.
Tuesday’s Inquirer carries the story and quotes the previous bishop of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA), the Rev. Roy Almquist, who is ready—even in retirement—to take credit for the new congregation.
In a telling quote he reveals SEPA policy.
“Under normal circumstances, you would close a church that size,” Almquist said. “But they were determined not to close. They wanted to find a way for their church to minister in a changing neighborhood.”
He does not say who the “you” is who would close the small church. Constitutionally, it is the congregation itself that must vote to close.
In 2005, as Bishop Almquist was nearing the end of his second term, he recommended the arrangement which lead to the congregation’s merger.
At the same time, there were other opportunities beating relentlessly on his door that he just plain ignored. His inaction has been costly to his synod and to the neighborhood of East Falls.
East Lansdowne’s story is similar to that of Redeemer, less than ten miles away. The only difference is that Redeemer did not have to come crawling to SEPA, begging for help. In fact, Redeemer had more money than SEPA at the time Bishop Almquist was trying to help little Immanuel. In 2005 —and much of Bishop Almquist’s two terms — SEPA was in severe financial crisis.
Redeemer was every bit as passionate about “staying open” and had nearly four times as many members as Immanuel. Why help East Lansdowne and refuse basic services to Redeemer?
Redeemer had received a large bequest in the late 1980s and SEPA had eyes for it, actually withdrawing $90,000 from our bank account in 1998. Redeemer protested.
This conflict was unnecessary and fateful. Redeemer was left with a reputation of being “trouble.” Few Lutherans take the time to analyze the source of the trouble or to ask themselves what they might do if the Synod visited their bank without their knowledge.
SEPA returned the money (after two years of needless conflict with Redeemer) but refused to serve the congregation from that point on. Their strategy was to wait for Redeemer to die a natural death. Bishop Almquist’s message was clear: Do things my way or else. Redeemer was shunned.
Bishop Almquist refused to help the congregation find a pastor to call. Redeemer was left to fend for itself.
The rest of the story is not at all unlike Immanuel’s. Immigrants from East Africa began to join the little neighborhood church—first one family, then extended family, then friends. Redeemer found two pastors, both from Africa, willing to serve the congregation.
Having received 49 new members with many more interested, Redeemer approached the new bishop, Claire Burkat, and asked to call one of the pastors.
Bishop Burkat’s head was buried in Bishop Almquist’s play book. She took no time to consider that things might have changed since Bishop Almquist deserted his duty in East Falls.
She reviewed our reports with prejudice fueled by a six-figure deficit budget. She decided that only our white members should be counted. She assigned trustees who reported falsely that the congregation had just 13 members. (In court they are trying to hold us to a quorum for more than 70.)
Bishop Burkat pontificated, “White Redeemer must be allowed to die. Black Redeemer, we can put them anywhere.” Destroying Redeemer was the priority — not mission. She set things in motion to force the church to close. It has now been locked for nearly three years.
Why not reward success?
The answer: SEPA was passing massive deficit budgets fairly routinely, relying on closing churches, seizing assets and selling property to make up shortfalls. Redeemer was known to have money and a valuable property.
We celebrate the successful union of Faith and Immanuel and wish them the best.
However, a wise church would also review its failures. The concurrent neglect and harmful policies practiced in East Falls are routinely swept under the rug as if the mess was all the fault of the people. This is wrong and innately dishonest.
Join Bishop Ruby Kinisa as she visits small churches "under cover" to learn what people would never share if they knew they were talking to their bishop.
Undercover Bishop will always be available in PDF form on 2x2virtualchurch.com for FREE.
Print or Kindle copies are available on Amazon.com.
For bulk copies, please contact 2x2: creation@dca.net.
Contact Info
You can reach
Judy Gotwald,
the moderator of 2x2,
at
creation@dca.net
or 215 605 8774
Redeemer’s Prayer
We were all once strangers, the weakest, the outcasts, until someone came to our defense, included us, empowered us, reconciled us (1 Cor. 2; Eph. 2).
2×2 Sections
Where in the World is 2×2?
On Isaiah 30:15b
Be calm. Wait. Wait. Commit your cause to God. He will make it succeed. Look for Him a little at a time. Wait. Wait. But since this waiting seems long to the flesh and appears like death, the flesh always wavers. But keep faith. Patience will overcome wickedness.
—Martin Luther
